City of Lincoln v. County of Lancaster, 297 Neb. 256

A Lancaster County deputy intentionally made physical contact with a City of Lincoln police officer, aggravating a preexisting shoulder surgery; the City paid about $63,418 in workers’ compensation/medical expenses.
City sued County seeking reimbursement for those payments. County asserted sovereign immunity and that the claim fell within the Act’s intentional-tort (battery) exception.
County had a retained-limits general liability policy with a $250,000 retained limit and $4,750,000 policy limit; the policy obligated the insurer to indemnify only for damages and claim expenses in excess of the retained limit and required an "occurrence."
District court granted summary judgment for County, holding (1) the claim arose from a battery and was therefore barred by § 13-910’s intentional torts exception, and (2) the County’s insurance did not waive immunity for the $63k claim because of the retained limit.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds: it concluded the policy’s insuring agreement required an "occurrence" (an accidental happening), battery is intentional and therefore not an "occurrence," so the policy provided no coverage and thus § 13-916 did not effect a waiver of sovereign immunity for this claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City’s claim is barred by the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act intentional-tort (battery) exception	The touching was minor/unexpected and should not be characterized as battery	The contact was intentional and therefore constitutes battery excluded from the Act’s waiver	Held: The contact was intentional; claim arises from a battery and fits the intentional-tort exception, so immunity applies absent waiver
Whether County’s purchase of liability insurance waived sovereign immunity for the City’s $63k claim	§ 13-916 waives immunity to extent of purchased liability insurance; City argues County’s procurement waived immunity even if claim is within retained limit	County argues the policy only indemnifies amounts in excess of the retained limit and, in any event, policy covers only "occurrences," not intentional acts	Held: Policy covers only "occurrences" (accidental happenings). Battery is intentional and not an "occurrence," so the policy provided no coverage and § 13-916 did not effect a waiver for this claim

Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133 (discusses intentional-tort exception under the Tort Claims Act)
Drake-Williams Steel v. Continental Cas. Co., 294 Neb. 386 (insurance-policy interpretation requires determining whether insurer covered the risk)
Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (harmful intentional contact is the essence of battery)
Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 697 (intentional acts are not accidents for insurance coverage)
Blaser v. County of Madison, 288 Neb. 306 (statutory waiver via insurance procurement explained)
State of Florida v. Countrywide Truck Ins. Agency, 294 Neb. 400 (policy-language waiver principles)
Linscott v. Shasteen, 288 Neb. 276 (procedural point on briefing/reply issues)
Farr v. Designer Phosphate & Premix Internat., 253 Neb. 201 (definition/discussion of accident in coverage context)
Anderson v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 295 Neb. 785 (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)